United States v. Arvil Sutton Hopkins

458 F.2d 1353, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9870
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedApril 27, 1972
Docket71-3281
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 458 F.2d 1353 (United States v. Arvil Sutton Hopkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Arvil Sutton Hopkins, 458 F.2d 1353, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9870 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Arvil Sutton Hopkins was charged in a three count indictment with possessing an unregistered still, 26 U.S.C. § 5601 (a) (1); carrying on the business of a distiller without having given bond, 26 U.S.C. § 5601(a) (4); and assaulting a federal officer with a dangerous weapon. He was acquitted by a jury of the assault charge but was convicted on the *1354 remaining counts and sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment. We affirm.

Hopkins raises two points on appeal. He first contends that the failure of the trial court to administer the oath to the jury until after the government had presented its case was reversible error. No objection was made to the tardy swearing of the jury and the trial continued. Neither party has cited, nor has our research revealed any federal case in which a similar problem has arisen. 1 However, our review of various state decisions reveals that other courts have held such claimed error to be harmless. 2 We are in full agreement. No prejudice has been shown by the delayed swearing of the jury, no objection was made, and the oath was administered before the jury retired to begin its deliberations. Given all of these circumstances, any error was clearly harmless.

Hopkins second contention is that the evidence was insufficient to justify the conviction for possession of an unregistered still. However, Hopkins failed to move for acquittal at the close of all the evidence. In such a case our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to a determination of whether there has occurred a “manifest miscarriage of justice.” 3 We have held that such a miscarriage would exist only if it appears that the record is “devoid of evidence pointing to guilt.” 4 Upon a careful review of the record, giving particular attention to the deficiencies in the evidence alleged by Hopkins, we are convinced that the evidence before the jury was not such as to render the guilty verdict a manifest miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

1

. See generally Lowenstein v. Federal Rubber Co., 85 F.2d 129 (8th Cir. 1936) (departure from impaneling procedure not reversible error where no prejudice shown).

2

. Garner v. State, 206 Ala. 56, 89 So. 69 (1921) (no reversible error where oath administered after evidence introduced but before jury retired and no objection made to failure of court to swear jury at an earlier time); Stark v. State, 133 Miss. 275, 97 So. 577 (1923) (in a capital felony case swearing of jury after state had presented its evidence and over objection of the defendant not reversible error because oath was administered before jury retired to consider verdict); State v. Frazier, 339 Mo. 966, 98 S.W.2d 707 (1936) (where record shows jury was sworn during progress of trial and before they began to deliberate error is not fatal and is waived if defendant fails to object). See also State v. Mayfield, 235 S.C. 11, 109 S.E.2d 716 (1959) (bare allegation that jury was not sworn insufficient to overcome presumption that jury was sworn and in any event failure to object precludes raising issue on appeal).

3

. United States v. Haney, 429 F.2d 1282 (5th Cir. 1970); Whatley v. United States, 428 F.2d 806 (5th Cir. 1970).

4

. United States v. Wright, 427 F.2d 1179 (5th Cir. 1970); Moomaw v. United States, 220 F.2d 589 (5th Cir. 1955).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Toni Theresa Torrez
548 P.3d 685 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 2024)
United States v. Elmer Wiman
875 F.3d 384 (Seventh Circuit, 2017)
United States v. Turrietta
696 F.3d 972 (Tenth Circuit, 2012)
Pueblo v. Bonilla Peña
183 P.R. 335 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 2011)
Alston v. State
994 A.2d 896 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2010)
Alston v. State
934 A.2d 949 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2007)
People v. Abadia
767 N.E.2d 341 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2001)
State v. Arellano
1998 NMSC 026 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1998)
State v. Block
489 N.W.2d 715 (Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 1992)
United States v. Ramon Pinero, Teddy Suarez
948 F.2d 698 (Eleventh Circuit, 1991)
State v. Roberge
582 A.2d 142 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1990)
State v. Apodaca
735 P.2d 1156 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Poulin
507 A.2d 563 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1986)
State v. Godfrey
666 P.2d 1080 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
Hollis v. People
630 P.2d 68 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1981)
People v. Hollis
605 P.2d 483 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1979)
United States v. Hillward John Fruge
495 F.2d 557 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Bobby Andrew Ivory
468 F.2d 613 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
458 F.2d 1353, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 9870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-arvil-sutton-hopkins-ca5-1972.